U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-20-2013, 05:32 PM
 
10,167 posts, read 17,117,165 times
Reputation: 5742

Advertisements

Quote:
=Yn0hTnA;32682381] All I am simply stating is that Texas (and Oklahoma) are transition regions where the South and the Southwest meet, both culturally, and geographically.
And what I am stating is that Texas, and Oklahoma as well (in a slightly different way), are "Southwestern" states, for the most part, only in the sense they are the basic South, moved west. The contain all the elements of the South yet, unlike the southeast states, they have a "western frontier" element about them. They are either South-central or "western SOUTH".

This is in total contrast to the "Southwest" of New Mexico and Arizona. Although there may be, in some parts, a certain shared similarity topography (and not much even in that), the history and rooted culture are NOTHING alike between the pairs.

Quote:
You are laughing a bit? Well, my friend, I am LMAO at the fetish you have with the South, trying to spin it so that nearly all of Texas (including the obviously rugged frontier of West Texas) is as Southern as Atlanta in Gone with the Wind. Get real.
LOL. Good try...and roll your eyes until they come out of the socket and play marbles. HAHAHAHA

But...it doesn't work. It looks silly, as it is.

LOL What fetish are you talking about? The only "fetish" I can see is the one that you seem to have to lecture everyone on Texas' regional affiliation

You really DO have delusions of grandeur if you think I am measuring my opinion of that you desperately attempt. I have presented -- go back and look at them -- the attitudes of people in various parts of the country as to feeling whether or not they live in the South and/or consider themselves Southerners.

The majority from 13 states said they did. Those states were the 11 Old Confederate States, plus Kentucky and Oklahoma. What is your issue with that or, rather, why do you question that at all? Do you know something they don't?

I realize you are retreating in that you are failing in your attempts. I mean, not even once have you listed any historical/cultural characteristic of Texas that would, say, be in any starker contrast to Mississippi than eastern Tennessee would be to south Louisiana. But if so, what are they?

Why don't you just admit you really don't know as much about the South as you think you do...? Actually, it is deeper than that. The South IS much deeper than GWTW myth. It always has been. And one of the saddest things about it all is that not all seem to realize it.

And BTW, just because I am a 4th generation Texan doesn't mean I know everything in the world about Texas history/culture. I never claimed nor ever will, otherwise. This is absolutely analogous to someone from the Deep South believing the birth-place alone is sufficient to make a case as in what defines "The South".

If you want to take these issues (such as the cowboy and Hispanic influence) one at a time? I will be glad to do so. In fact, I would welcome the chance for a one-on-one debate with you. Private or public either one will work for me!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-22-2013, 07:41 AM
 
Location: Oklahoma
6,868 posts, read 6,194,424 times
Reputation: 6164
I just have to keep chuckling at TexasReb, comparing Cajuns and Mexicans. I guess he thinks Nova Scotia is across the river from Lafayette, La.

And this idea about cotton in west Texas. Arizona was a big cotton state so that should make it southern.

There is absolutely no doubt that west Texas is southern to some extent but it is just as much southwestern as it is southern. Amarillo is almost equally southern, southwestern and great plains.

And if the Southwestern "cowboy" image isn't from Texas and Oklahoma then where exactly is it from? First rodeo was in Pecos, Tx.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2013, 04:02 PM
 
10,167 posts, read 17,117,165 times
Reputation: 5742
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddie gein View Post
I just have to keep chuckling at TexasReb, comparing Cajuns and Mexicans. I guess he thinks Nova Scotia is across the river from Lafayette, La.
Well, I am glad you are amused. I always enjoy discussing/debating with someone who at least has a sense of humor! LOL But anyway...

Quote:
And this idea about cotton in west Texas. Arizona was a big cotton state so that should make it southern.
No, you are comparing apples and oranges. The comparison doesn't hold up at all. Arizona was never part of the old "Cotton Belt." When I mentioned cotton, I was talking about a common history of settlement and culture and attitudes that flowed across the Deep and Upper South into Texas as naturally as flows the Mississippi River, that involved -- among countless other things -- cotton farming of the original extension. Arizona and New Mexico just share almost none of the basic historical/cultural/religious/political/etc, that shaped Texas.

Point being, I never said cotton alone made a state "Southern". Any more than growing corn makes a state "Midwestern." If it were? Then Texas might have a claim to being Midwestern. Surely you don't believe THAT! LOL

And neither would about any Texan
. Which hones in on a central point of the entire premise. That is, that self-identification by a majority of residents might just be the most telling of all. The blunt fact is that most Texans identify with living in the South and thinking of themselves as Southerners (to a bit lesser extent, so do Oklahomans).

The total opposite is true in Arizona and New Mexico (they go with "Western").

Quote:
There is absolutely no doubt that west Texas is southern to some extent but it is just as much southwestern as it is southern. Amarillo is almost equally southern, southwestern and great plains.
I never argued that the "trans-pecos region isn't probably more akin to the interior Southwest than the rest of Texas. Nor that the upper-panhandle area doesn't contain strong Lower/Plains Midwestern influences.

But a couple of things to rejoin? Well, hell, El Paso went for secession, and Midland and Amarillo have high schools named after Robert E. Lee and the song "Dixie" is still a part of west Texas schools, as is the fact many counties are named after Confederate heroes. The Southern Baptist church membership in western Texas is equal to that in Mississippi. Is any of the same true west of Texas?

Sure, topographically and landscape-wise? I have no argument with you at all. But historically, and culturally I can't make the point stronger than to say that Texas is NOT the Southwest of New Mexico and Arizona. It never has been. They didn't even become states until long after Texas had solidified itself by being -- thru those forces -- a part of the South.

I appreciate and acknowledge your comment about the blends of regionalism in some parts of Texas, and will say it is true on some granted levels.

BUT? The bottom line is that -- again -- even in west Texas, more residents identify with the South than the West. The opposite is the rule in NM and AZ.

Quote:
And if the Southwestern "cowboy" image isn't from Texas and Oklahoma then where exactly is it from? First rodeo was in Pecos, Tx .
What are you talking about? Many parts of the Deep South were cattle states too. So what does a rodeo have to do with it? What I am saying is that the prototype of the Texas cowboy was of the Old South drover tradition. That was the stock they came from (no pun intended! LOL) They rode a McClellan type saddle, not that of the Mexican vaquero. True they adopted some of the esoteric language of the vaquero, but let's put it into historical perspective.

That is to say, after the Texas Revolution, most Mexicans left the state. The settlers who flooded in were overwhelmingly from the southeastern United States. It would only make sense they were of Southern traditions, not Mexican. I don't know what is so disparaging about this part of history.

Texas is Southern...western Southern, sure. But their/our ancestors were blacks and whites mostly from Tennessee and Alabama and Mississippi and Georgia. On the other hand, how many settlers moved from New Mexico and Arizona to settle and influence Texas?

Finally, I do indeed realize a minority of Texans -- for whatever reason -- do not want to be associated with the rest of the South. To that? I don't know what to say.

I know and sure do respect that some will not agree with my outlook.

But in my opinion? I think, and have for sometime, believed that it is time Texas took back its rightful place in the constellation of Southern stars. After all, the original phrase "Empire State of the South"?

It was FIRST applied to Texas in 1858.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2013, 06:08 PM
 
Location: Oklahoma
6,868 posts, read 6,194,424 times
Reputation: 6164
Ah heck, I guess I'll quit arguing and get me a bowl of chili or get me some chiles. Should I stay. Some of that good ole "southern food".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2013, 07:11 PM
 
10,167 posts, read 17,117,165 times
Reputation: 5742
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddie gein View Post
Ah heck, I guess I'll quit arguing and get me a bowl of chili or get me some chiles. Should I stay. Some of that good ole "southern food".
That'll work. Enjoy. I may do the same thing. Chili...without beans! But WITH fritoes! LOL
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2013, 07:58 PM
 
Location: A subtropical paradise
2,069 posts, read 2,199,967 times
Reputation: 1329
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
And everything thing and every thing is also influenced by something that came before it. The Mexicans were influenced by the Spanish and so-on. This can go back to the First Day. Everybody learned something from somebody and everyone "stole" land, from somebody. I mean, it wasn't exactly a genie that gave the Mexican vaquero the first dibs. Cattle are not something that other people from all over the world haven't figured out.

Sure, lots of "language of the trade" were Mexican in origin. But the point is, most Texas cowboys were Southerners whose habits, attitudes, and lifestyles were of the South, not Mexico.

And actually, even then, most who settled Texas were small famers -- especially cotton -- not cattlemen and/or ranchers.

In other words? They were still Southern. They felt nothing different in attitude, ancestry, history, culture, etc, than they did when they crossed the Sabine river or, eventually, moved west of the caprock.
Like I said, the fact is the Southerners retained some culture while simultaneously adopting new ways from the already established vaquero population in Texas. And yes there were cotton farmers. All that does is just add to the fact that Texas is a transition region where the South meets the West. Half the state is in the American South, and the other half is the Southwest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
No single state -- no matter HOW Deep South is -- can call itself the "standard" by which all others must be measured against. Once again, anything otherwise is the height of arrogance and presumptuousness.

What is so hard to understand about that?
The truest of southern states (Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, etc) were all defined by their shared intense anti-bellum history where a distinct Southern Culture was developed. This pre-Civil War culture is still celebrated to this day in all those states. Texas and Florida are in the same boat in that that joined the United States at a point too late to have such an intense ante-bellum culture develop (1845 for both states.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2013, 08:17 PM
 
Location: A subtropical paradise
2,069 posts, read 2,199,967 times
Reputation: 1329
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
And what I am stating is that Texas, and Oklahoma as well (in a slightly different way), are "Southwestern" states, for the most part, only in the sense they are the basic South, moved west. The contain all the elements of the South yet, unlike the southeast states, they have a "western frontier" element about them. They are either South-central or "western SOUTH".

This is in total contrast to the "Southwest" of New Mexico and Arizona. Although there may be, in some parts, a certain shared similarity topography (and not much even in that), the history and rooted culture are NOTHING alike between the pairs.
Texas and Oklahoma are the transition regions between the South, and the Southwest. The two states contain elements from both regions of the country, and have populations that aren't entirely southern.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
LOL. Good try...and roll your eyes until they come out of the socket and play marbles. HAHAHAHA

But...it doesn't work. It looks silly, as it is.

LOL What fetish are you talking about? The only "fetish" I can see is the one that you seem to have to lecture everyone on Texas' regional affiliation

Yes, you have a fetish(an obsession) with trying to have Oklahoma and Texas as essentially Southern states, even though both states have strong, well-defined Southwestern influence. The only part of Texas that is in the "Deep South" is the portion east of Greater Houston. But yet you go on and on of how Southern the two states are. I don't blame my eyeballs for wanting to fall off the sockets; they couldn't stand to look at your hideous obsession.

You really DO have delusions of grandeur if you think I am measuring my opinion of that you desperately attempt. I have presented -- go back and look at them -- the attitudes of people in various parts of the country as to feeling whether or not they live in the South and/or consider themselves Southerners.

The majority from 13 states said they did. Those states were the 11 Old Confederate States, plus Kentucky and Oklahoma. What is your issue with that or, rather, why do you question that at all? Do you know something they don't?

And all you did is swallow hook, line and sinker, the "evidence" of such reports without thinking critically. Use the logic. You have to examine what is going on behind the scenes before you accept such evidence. Think about what could've been going on in the minds of such populations as those surveys were being taken.

I realize you are retreating in that you are failing in your attempts. I mean, not even once have you listed any historical/cultural characteristic of Texas that would, say, be in any starker contrast to Mississippi than eastern Tennessee would be to south Louisiana. But if so, what are they?

Why don't you just admit you really don't know as much about the South as you think you do...? Actually, it is deeper than that. The South IS much deeper than GWTW myth. It always has been. And one of the saddest things about it all is that not all seem to realize it.

And BTW, just because I am a 4th generation Texan doesn't mean I know everything in the world about Texas history/culture. I never claimed nor ever will, otherwise. This is absolutely analogous to someone from the Deep South believing the birth-place alone is sufficient to make a case as in what defines "The South".

No, I have presented quite a few things that contrast Texas with the real South... such as the established and rooted Mexican and Vaquero culture. Although I wasn't born in any southern state, before my exploration of such states, I did intensive research in the vast libraries of Reach, giving me loads of information about the region. I understand the South is more than what GWTW presents it to be... however, each of the different regions in the south are more connected with each-other than any of them are with Texas (save for deep East Texas) or Oklahoma.

If you want to take these issues (such as the cowboy and Hispanic influence) one at a time? I will be glad to do so. In fact, I would welcome the chance for a one-on-one debate with you. Private or public either one will work for me!

Yep, I will be willing to debate with you, privately. But be prepared, what you saw was me using only two percent of my knowledge. I promise you, once I synthesize the resources of the great library in my city of New Alexandria, things will be heated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2013, 11:01 PM
 
10,167 posts, read 17,117,165 times
Reputation: 5742
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yn0hTnA View Post
Like I said, the fact is the Southerners retained some culture while simultaneously adopting new ways from the already established vaquero population in Texas. And yes there were cotton farmers. All that does is just add to the fact that Texas is a transition region where the South meets the West. Half the state is in the American South, and the other half is the Southwest.
I agree in lots of ways. But that is the key. Whether you admit it or not, looking back over your posts, you are simply shifting a bit to agree with MY points. Although I know you will not admit it, YOU are the one changing wording...and not back up anything you say...or at least not much of it...

Now, again, the Southwest is and always has been, something of a sub-region of the South on lots of levels, and, later, a separate one on others. Here is a good article on it, and lots of backup in terms of footnotes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southw..._United_States

The bottom line is that the Southwest of Texas and Oklahoma has not much in common with the Southwest of New Mexico and Arizona. There are a few topographical similarities, but almost nothing in terms of historical and cultural ones. The pairs don't even self-identify as in the same broader regions!

And nothing wrong with that. it is just -- boiled down -- Texas and Oklahoma are western Southern, and Arizona and New Mexico are southern Western. Two different critters.

I ask again. What about west Texas, other than some features of physical topography, has much in common with New Mexico and Arizona? All I ask is an answer and I never get one.

Quote:
The truest of southern states (Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, etc) were all defined by their shared intense anti-bellum history where a distinct Southern Culture was developed.
As I said in an earlier post, I actually -- no kidding -- know some distant kin from Mississippi and Alabama who barely consider South Carolina, Southern. And definitely not Louisiana or North Carolina. Would you agree with that?

BUT? Point is, as I have said repeatedly, YOU are the one seemingly making a solidified statement that the South is defined by some myth of moonlight and magnolias. YES, I agree there is something to that. But ALSO? There is something to that western Texas is the South moved west, and that southeastern settlers make into an EXTREMLY unique part of the South. The SOUTHwest, so to speak. The ORIGINAL Southwest, about the strongest bastion of Southern Baptist Church membership in the world.

Quote:
This pre-Civil War culture is still celebrated to this day in all those states. Texas and Florida are in the same boat in that that joined the United States at a point too late to have such an intense ante-bellum culture develop (1845 for both states.)
Texas and Florida were two of the original seven Confederate States (the four of the Upper South joined up later), so what is your point here? What sort of "Gone With The Wind" culture did Tennessee or Arkansas have? And your years are wrong, by the way! Again, and I can never say it enough, the South is just a region where, heck, those who live in it, believe they live in it. If their idea of the South is GWTW, then I guess that is what it is. On the other hand, if it is good manners and a Confederate history and black-eyed peas, then Texas and other states make ad dad-gum proud part of it. I state that with pride, as a Texan. NO one from any Deep South state "out Southerns" me.

If any think they do? Then I say again, step up to the plate and we will go after it. I dare them to say they love it (the South) any more than I do. If so?, then start with stating why they feel they have the authority to actually feel a superiority in thinking they are more Southern than I am...?

Last edited by TexasReb; 12-22-2013 at 11:29 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2013, 07:47 AM
 
Location: Oklahoma
6,868 posts, read 6,194,424 times
Reputation: 6164
Oops, had to bed down in Big Springs last night. Flipping through the channels on the TV I came across a program called "Light of the SOUTHWEST" on the GLC channel which is headquartered in Midland/Odessa.

I am going to send them a protest letter demanding that the name of the program be changed to "The Light of the empire State of the South".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2013, 02:58 PM
 
10,167 posts, read 17,117,165 times
Reputation: 5742
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddie gein View Post
Oops, had to bed down in Big Springs last night. Flipping through the channels on the TV I came across a program called "Light of the SOUTHWEST" on the GLC channel which is headquartered in Midland/Odessa.

I am going to send them a protest letter demanding that the name of the program be changed to "The Light of the empire State of the South".
You might want to provide this one!

************************************************** ***********


Cleveland State University

EngagedScholarship@CSU

History Faculty Publications History Department

4-1-2007

On Empire's Shore: Free and Unfree Workers in

Galveston, Texas, 1840-1860

Robert S. Shelton

Cleveland State University, R.S.SHELTON@csuohio.edu

In 1846, after a decade of desultory independence, Texas joined the United

States, expanding the South's cotton-slave frontier westward and promising to

take its place as the most bountiful plantation region in the country. From 1850

to 1860 the state tose to become the fifth-leading cotton producer in the nation,

and observers predicted even more spectacular growth as more slaves and better

transportation opened up more of Texas's fertile lands to agriculture. Texas,

as the editor of the Austin Texas State Ga?:ette prophesied, was destined to become

the "Empire State of the South."^ On the shores of this potential empire

of cotton and slaves, Galveston also awaited the fulfillment of its promise. Located

on a barrier island about 300 miles west of New Orleans, the city possessed

one of the best natural harbors on the Gulf of Mexico, and its boosters crowed

that if Texas became the South's Empire State, Galveston would be its New

York City. Galveston, another editor predicted, "will undoubtedly, at no distant

day, become the center of commerce rivaling in extent that of many of the first


***************

And as it was? Galveston did indeed become known -- and called itself -- "The Wall Street of the South"!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top